Search This Blog

Thursday, August 8, 2013

POLICE DETAILS WHEN DEEMED A PUBLIC NUISANCE

The section below is direct out of Hartford's municipal code. The calls for service at 3340 Main Street seem to be exactly what this ordinance was passed for. Why not start enforcing it? It is definitely a matter of Public Safety
 
Sec. 29-17. - Public safety police detail for places of public amusement and extended hours business premises.permanent link to this piece of content
(a)
The city has experienced significant problems with security and illegal activity within and surrounding various businesses operating as places of public amusement, extended hours convenience stores and other businesses open between the hours of 11:30 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. for several years including but not limited to problems with loitering, the illegal sale of narcotics, fighting and other physical altercations and other serious criminal activity.
(b)
This article is intended to aid in preventing crimes and nuisance, to secure for the citizens of and the visitors to the city the general welfare, public order, safety and peace, to protect employees of businesses such as those described herein and the consumer public at such businesses, and to establish security standards for such businesses that are uniform throughout the city.
(c)
The city now declares, in order to permit the development and implementation of reasonable controls that will effectively protect the public, businesses such as those described herein and their patrons, that this article be enacted.
(1)
The chief of police shall review all incident reports for property locations to which public safety personnel reported or were summoned or for which a complaint was filed with the police department for any loud, disturbing, illegal or violent conduct at any place of public amusement, extended hours convenience stores or any other business open between the hours of 11:30 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. ("premises"). Such incident reports shall contain the name and address of the premises and the name of the permittee(s) or owner(s) in charge of the premises.
(2)
The chief of police shall review such incident reports together with any other reliable information available to him/her concerning the premises. After such review, the chief of police shall determine whether the public safety of the patrons, invitees, employees or the general public require the deployment of a police detail to the premises.
(3)
For purposes of determining whether to deploy a police detail, the chief of police shall consider, but not be limited to the following factors in making such a determination:
a.
The nature, scope, and seriousness of the incident(s);
b.
The occurrence of violence and whether physical injuries resulted;
c.
Historical information regarding the premises and the owner(s) or permittee(s) with respect to similar incidents;
d.
The level of cooperation or lack of cooperation from the owner(s) or permittee(s) of the premises in addressing or correcting incident(s); and
e.
The benefit to the public's safety of deploying a police detail to the premises.
(4)
In the event it is determined that a police detail is necessary for public safety purposes the permittee(s) or owner(s) in charge of the premises will upon notice be required to pay the cost to the city of each police detail officer, in a number determined by the chief of police, as well as any necessary expenses incurred by the police department for providing such services. Said police detail shall initially be required for no more than four (4) weeks. After said period, the chief of police shall review the situation and any new information available to him/her. The chief of police may revise the number of detail police officers required or may terminate the requirement for police detail. The chief of police shall continue this four-week review cycle until such time as he/she determines that a police detail is not necessary.
(5)
Prior to any determination by the chief of police of the necessity for a police detail, he or she shall notify the permittee(s) or owner(s), in charge of the premises, in writing, via in hand delivery or via certified mail mailed to the premises, and shall offer the permittee(s) or owner(s) an opportunity to present any evidence within ten (10) business days which he or she believes is relevant to the decision of whether to order a police detail.
(6)
Upon determination that a police detail is so ordered, failure of any permittee(s) or owner(s) to promptly pay in full for a police detail or to abide by the decision of the chief of police shall be forthwith punishable by way of police action temporarily closing the premises and subject the permittee(s) or owner(s) to additional costs, legal fees and interest. The chief of police shall also report such failure to pay for police detail or to comply with orders or directives of the chief of police to the division of licenses and inspections for immediate action pursuant to section 21-9 of this Code suspending or, as appropriate, terminating both the permit or license to operate, where applicable.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

ANOTHER NIGHT, ANOTHER SHOOTING

It is early, so this might just be the first one for the night, but apparently a woman walking into a corner store at Main and Nelson Streets was just pelted with bird shot apparently
fired form a shotgun. Does anyone else seem to notice that once again our shootings and violent crime seem to be rising again?

More on this when I have time to compose some thoughts.

ARE YOU WATCHING THE HIT COUNTER?

I had thought that after Eddie Perez was convicted in his corruption trial the "We the People" blog " would die off. What  could I possibly have to write about?

One local reporter corrected me and said that "Hartford was the gift that keeps on giving"  I wish I didn't have so many girts being handed to me, but oh well.

The way the numbers look, I may quite possibly hit the million page view mark by the end of August.

Thank you to all readers for your continued support.

MAYOR CAN'T SAY "NO", BUT THE COUNCIL CAN

The two resolutions I posted about last night never made it out of Committee tonight at the Council's Operations Management Budget and Legislative Affairs  Committee.

What is next, telling DPW what size engines they can put on lawnmowers?

I only wish that Mayor Segarra would start actually acting like a Mayor so we could get beyond this nonsense and actually start  moving the City forward. The infighting serves no one well, especially not the people of Hartford.

This will make more sense after reading yesterdays post here

JUST THE FACTS PLEASE

Apparently when I posted back in June about the violent crime occurring at the West Indian Social Club, I touched a nerve. Well below are the listing of the violent crime that has taken place within 500 feet of the club for the last 2 and a half years. It is a rather extensive list but be sure to look at the specifics for 3340 Main Street, that means the incidents actually happened on the grounds or in the club.

And as far as touching the nerves, apparently a couple of cowards afraid of confronting me, were unhappy with the posting and the comments. There was one comment that was questionable and as soon as it was brought to my attention, I removed it. Instead, the cowards were  too busy going behind my back making calls and other nonsense to portray me as a racist.

Apparently there were "petitions" to be circulated and a lot of phone calls to be made. Luckily there are still a few people in Hartford with character and integrity that called me  with their concerns and the information they were hearing. That is what adults with any integrity do. It is easy for a coward to jump on the "racism" bandwagon when they have nothing else to run with. But I am very proud of the accomplishments this blog has made to make Hartford a better place, no matter who or what race they are.

To me it is about right and wrong and not the color of someone's skin. I don't think the truth differs from one race to another. But again if you have nothing to fall back on, go ahead and play the race card.

Maybe it is because one of the cowards had a relative that was caught up and arrested during the Perez Grand Jury and needs some sort of vindication, so jump on the bandwagon. Or maybe another coward just had a family member whose Hummer was just towed again by HPD, the same as it was a couple years ago after it was posted here on the blog The vehicle was apparently towed again last Friday for operating unregistered, misuse of plates and no insurance. Here is more about the first time


Both my cell phone and e-mail are clearly posted on the blog, I encourage anyone who has an issue with my comments, feel free to contact me. No need to be cowardly.


HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?

Cash seized
 
Henry DePena
 
Narcotics seized
 
 
I received the press release below from HPD this evening and after reading it  I had to wonder how something like this happens?

FROM HPD:

On August 7, 2013 at 1100am Detectives from the Hartford Police Department Vice & Narcotics Division executed a search warrant on the Los Cubanitos Market at 206 Park Street. Entry was gained without incident. The primary target and owner, Henry Depena, was detained. As a result Detectives seized over $4000.00 in currency and a very large quantity of illegal prescription drugs including Oxycodone, Suboxone and Viagra.

 

Depena, 46 of Hartford (6 previous arrests) was charged with 6 charges, including Possession of Narcotics with intent to sell and operating a drug factory. Depena was held on a $200,000 bond. This is the 4th time in less than 5 years that HPD has successfully conducted an operation on Depena’s market for this type of activity. The market has also been the central location of over 150 police actions in the past 5 years.
 
Depena has a court date of 08/14/13.
 
This is the part that caught my attention:This is the 4th time in less than 5 years that HPD has successfully conducted an operation on Depena’s market for this type of activity. The market has also been the central location of over 150 police actions in the past 5 years.
 
The fourth time in less than five years, are the courts asleep? What does it take to get someone off the streets that is dumping poison onto our streets. And it is not just drugs also. I regularly get press releases outlining shootings and other crimes where both suspects and victims sometimes have 30, 40 or even 50 arrests. What does it take for the prosecutors and judges take these crimes seriously.
 
I recently had a regular reader of the blog e-mail me for help with an individual that was "running" South Marshall Street and tormenting some good people that live there The individual had been arrested recently for carrying a sawed off shotgun and was involved in several incidents. In one of the incidents he had a set of brass knuckles he was wearing. The brass knuckles also had a knife attached. During one of his assaults, he punched his victim in the eye, plunging the blade in and blinding the victim in one eye.
 
Does this seem like someone that should be on the streets of any neighborhood in Hartford? The Police did their job and arrested the man again. The people in the neighborhood were thrilled to get word that he was taken off the streets and being held on a $780,000.00 bond. They were as surprised as I was when he was released later in the day when a bondsman took his bond for only $19,000.00. Now bond is not supposed to be punitive, I get that, but $19,000 for what should have been $780.000?
 
Any bets on whether he will appear in Court without a Failure to Appear charge?
 
Four raids in five years is ridiculous, get him off our streets